Could use a little help with 1st amendment

[holdover]

AHH boy I got into an argument with some collage kids on facebook over the first A.

A video of a man yelling anti black things ( cant hear it) was silenced by a very large biker who got up into his face and wave his finger and shouted at him when he tried to speak .. intimidating the man to shut up.

I felt that the mans first amendment rights were being violated by the biker. they claimed that the first can only be violated by the government as per the 1 amendment

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.


I disagreed but I failed to prove it. Am I wrong here?

 

[Magnus]

Yes you are wrong. We are born with freedoms, and the Amendments were created to keep the government from over stepping their bounds. Although I will agree the biker did prevent that man from exercising his freedom. The Amendments don't grant us anything, they just protect our freedoms from the government.

 

[Phazer]

The first amendment indeed protects individuals from the government.

In your example, the guy spewing hate speech was exercising his freedom of speech (repugnant as it may have been). Additionally, the biker criticizing the racist was exercising HIS freedom of speech.

 

[holdover]

Are we not protected from each other? If I rape somebody isn't that a violation of their rights? If I take your car without permission is that not a violation of our rights?
If I intimidate someone from speaking is that not a violation of their rights?

 

[Toecutter]

Speeking your mind can not be taken away only denied by government or otherwise. Popular speech does not need protection , either you have free speech or you dont.

 

[holdover]

I see what your saying but that guy intimidating that man to shut up is legal? to me its menacing, but I dunno . Im confused I thought our rights are protected from others as well as the government

 

[Blimey]

I have no video to watch but at some point yes it's not legal to get in somebody's face and scream at them, regardless of what they are or are not saying. It sounds rather like the biker did that. I doubt it's a 1st amendment issue but one of menacing, like you said (or some variant of).

 

[Saltwater60]

Are we not protected from each other? If I rape somebody isn't that a violation of their rights? If I take your car without permission is that not a violation of our rights?
If I intimidate someone from speaking is that not a violation of their rights?

Those are crimes not rights violations there's a difference. Also I feel we all have 1st ammendment rights so both men had the right to do and say what they feel is right. The smaller man could have kept spouting his mouth off he just decided not to. Keep in mind harassment is also a crime so depending on how far either one of them took it they could have been charged with that too possibly.

 

[holdover]

Oh those are definitely a violation of your rights, I belive that is why it is a crime.

 

[MilesTeg]

Oh those are definitely a violation of your rights, I belive that is why it is a crime.

A crime doesn't necessarily have to be a civil rights violation.

 

[Podmonkey]

Between private citizens, I can yell whatever I want and you can yell whatever you want right back at me. It's the government that has the obligation to not suppress speech. Or any other civil liberties.

 

[dsdmmat]

Not a violation of the 1st Amendment ( unless biker dude was a government official) As long as he didn't physically harm the man and it was just a shouting match no civil rights were violated as far as I can tell no crime (maybe disturbing the peace) was committed.

You have the right to voice your opinion, you also have to accept other people will voice their opinion. As long as it was two Joes running their mouths on the street. Protestors and counter protestors always try to intimidate the other side. If they did not verbally threaten them or physically touch them no blood, no foul.

 

[ProgSpear]

Neither of the phrases "racist asshole" or "intimidating biker" appear in the text of the 1st amendment.

Seriously though, the entire Constitution, including the BoR deals with what government cannot do, not what passes for civil society. Anyone is free to yell at someone else, right up to the point where the body of law dealing with unreasonable violence kicks in. That said, I still cannot understand why the Occupy and BLM rabble-rousers have not been prosecuted, as they performed actual violence against others they disagreed with.

 

[Phazer]

I have no video to watch but at some point yes it's not legal to get in somebody's face and scream at them, regardless of what they are or are not saying. It sounds rather like the biker did that. I doubt it's a 1st amendment issue but one of menacing, like you said (or some variant of).

Agreed.

If you get "unreasonably close" to somebody and intimidate, or threaten them through hostile verbiage or gesture, you are guilty of a crime. But, you are not guilty of personally abridging their 1st amendment rights.

 

[dwa12479]

I'd really like to see the video. Free speech can also gravitate to harassment. I wouldn't allow someone to stand in the middle of the street in front of my home and holler obscenities at my kids while they're playing in the yard. Shutting him up wouldn't be a violation of his rights at that point.

 

[Celt]

Are we not protected from each other? If I rape somebody isn't that a violation of their rights? If I take your car without permission is that not a violation of our rights?
If I intimidate someone from speaking is that not a violation of their rights?

The biker could have been denying the idiot his freedom of speech through an implied threat of force. "Disorderly conduct?".

You are right, and those idiot kids are wrong. Although............with the nonsense "hate speech" that the leftist have in place i dont know how that works.

 

[dwa12479]

Are the Patriot Guard Riders depriving the Westboro Baptist Church their 1A rights at soldiers funerals?

 

[Darth]

Where were all these people on the multiple occasions I've tried to get people to understand that, yes, a private business CAN prevent you from carrying a gun on their property!?

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I have no video to watch but at some point yes it's not legal to get in somebody's face and scream at them, regardless of what they are or are not saying. It sounds rather like the biker did that. I doubt it's a 1st amendment issue but one of menacing, like you said (or some variant of).

I can't see the video.

With that being said my thoughts are that God gives us our inalienable rights. We are born with them. The 1st A is supposed to guarantee it.

The 1A doesn't mean you can't prove your a jackass to the world. The 1a covers unpopular speech. Popular speech is widely accepted by that essence it shouldn't need protection. Unpopular and controversial speech needs protection. Again the 1A has no anti jackss rule. If you want to show the world your a racist jackass the 1A in most cases would allow you to do so, provided you don't infringe on others rights. An example is you have the right to free speech but you do not have the ability to slander someone.

However It doesn't allow you unlimited freedom to harass someone else belligerently or threaten/menace them. By doing so you are now violating their rights.

 

[Darth]

I can't see the video.

With that being said my thoughts are that God gives us our inalienable rights. We are born with them. The 1st A is supposed to guarantee it.

The 1A doesn't mean you can't prove your a jackass to the world. The 1a covers unpopular speech. Popular speech is widely accepted by that essence it shouldn't need protection. Unpopular and controversial speech needs protection. Again the 1A has no anti jackss rule. If you want to show the world your a racist jackass the 1A in most cases would allow you to do so, provided you don't infringe on others rights. An example is you have the right to free speech but you do not have the ability to slander someone.

However It doesn't allow you unlimited freedom to harass someone else belligerently or threaten/menace them. By doing so you are now violating their rights.

I agree and disagree.

I disagree on a few points. Who grants rights? Nobody. "God did!?", ...and he granted them, or kept them on for horrifically bad people and they used that right to commit atrocities...boo God? So I have to go with more "natural" rights. But I have much bigger issues than that. I disagree with libel, slander, and "fire in a crowded theater" laws.

Libel and slander laws are obviously useless given this election, and even if they were still valid, not sure I want THIS current populace to decide my fate based on them.

"Fire in a crowed theater?" You have me more on board with this, but given the gross misuse this can have, I have to err on the side of freedom.

I distinctly agree that the 1A is SPECIFICALLY for unpopular speech. Other speech doesn't really need protecting does it? If it is popular, who would challenge it?

An out of line stance on my part I understand, but I say err on the side of freedom with the constitution currently.

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

As many have said, 1A is about govt action.

Natural rights are natural rights. You have the natural ability to speak, and a self-evident right to do so. Any prevention of such ability is a crippling injury. Liberty and natural rights are unlimited, up to the point that they limit or injure another.

If the biker shouts into your face, you are not being limited.
If the biker threatens force or some other jeopardy, or even simply clamps his hand over your mouth - then it becomes a matter of section 35.

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

"Fire in a crowed theater?" You have me more on board with this, but given the gross misuse this can have, I have to err on the side of freedom.

There is no such thing as a "fire in a crowded theater" law. There was no case in the supreme court that dealt with yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a LIAR.

You can shout it all day long, and nobody can do jack shit about it, unless the fire dept comes and decides to bill your ass for the fuel that was used.

So, you can shout it. That said, if you shout it, you are not indemnified for the result. If you cause a panic? Big deal. But if someone breaks a toenail, you're fucked - but not because you shouted FIRE, but instead because you called for people to act, and YOU caused injury. You will end up in CIVIL court if the broken-toenail guy decides to sue you, the movie theater, and the carpenter who built the place. That's it, that's the whole thing. And there's no violation of law.

The MYTH of "Shout Fire" started from a supreme court case about a socialist who was printing stuff that people didn't like. The case had nothing to do with shouting fire, movie theaters, or anything else. It was strictly about printing out pro-socialist bullshit, and during the process, a judge made a "what if" comment about yelling "fire". The comment was irrelevant, is not "case law", is not binding, and isn't anything other than a bullshit talking point for progressives to deliberately lie with.

 

[Darth]

There is no such thing as a "fire in a crowded theater" law. There was no case in the supreme court that dealt with yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a LIAR.

I didn't even read the rest of your post, and I will, but I'm glad you mentioned this. It was NEVER caselaw. NEVER precedent.

 

[Darth]

UaC, you nailed it square on the head. I know that case quite well, and you did a great job explaining it.

 

[Darth]

There is no such thing as a "fire in a crowded theater" law. There was no case in the supreme court that dealt with yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a LIAR.

You can shout it all day long, and nobody can do jack shit about it, unless the fire dept comes and decides to bill your ass for the fuel that was used.

So, you can shout it. That said, if you shout it, you are not indemnified for the result. If you cause a panic? Big deal. But if someone breaks a toenail, you're fucked - but not because you shouted FIRE, but instead because you called for people to act, and YOU caused injury. You will end up in CIVIL court if the broken-toenail guy decides to sue you, the movie theater, and the carpenter who built the place. That's it, that's the whole thing. And there's no violation of law.

The MYTH of "Shout Fire" started from a supreme court case about a socialist who was printing stuff that people didn't like. The case had nothing to do with shouting fire, movie theaters, or anything else. It was strictly about printing out pro-socialist bullshit, and during the process, a judge made a "what if" comment about yelling "fire". The comment was irrelevant, is not "case law", is not binding, and isn't anything other than a bullshit talking point for progressives to deliberately lie with.

I can't like this post enough, but it was exactly what I was thinking about.

 

[Uninformed and Compliant]

I can't like this post enough, but it was exactly what I was thinking about.

Thanks. I had a good teacher on that topic, who happens to be a firefly fan.

 

[Darth]

Thanks. I had a good teacher on that topic, who happens to be a firefly fan.

I just kind of wish they separated the "freedom of speech" from "freedom of religion" a bit more.

 

[holdover]

Here is the video.

 

[Acer-m14]

Theres a vid on youtube of a x-nuke scientist giving a speech ... can you yell fire in the theater .. yes you can . but your responsible for any damages to the business , lost of $$$ and anyone that gets hurt ... its comes down to yes you have the right but have take responsibilities using it.

Does a 6 month baby have a right to own a gun ... it sure does .. but it doesn't have the know how to act responsible playing with it ..

you are also born with the right to be offended .. so suck it up buttercup ... words only hurt you if YOU!!!! let them

 

[holdover]

Maybe Im wrong about this , I don't know. To me it appears as if the bikerman is denying the other man the opportunity to speak in public , So my argument was that he is infringing on the mans right to speak . That was my position . they were saying , like some of you were, that it would have to be an agent of the government. I didn't see why it mattered if the man was being prevented to speak . My argument was if his rights are being violated it doesn't matter . their claim was that his rights were not being deprived, but I could not understand the logic of that when there clearly were on video tape.

I just am Not sure on the answer to this , is this a form of censorship or not?